I agree to all those who supports abortion because i believe a woman has her own choices to agree and disagree on matters when it comes to her health.What if a teen was raped and she was only in high school???? That"s not right and its very dangerous to her health and i believe she has to have that authority to make an abortion without doing all those sonograms that will try to convey her to make a decision she doesn't wanted!

Abortion has been often touted as "the right to choose". I agree that there is a right of choice involved which must be respected. But the question is: whose choice? What about the baby being aborted? Does it get a choice as to whether it will live or not?
In this debate I will seek to show that, contrary to the claim of the Pro Speaker, Abortion is wrong, both from the standpoint of health and also from a moral standpoint. First, however, it is imperative to come to some sort of conclusion about what an abortion actually does; whether it is a termination of life or not.
DISCLAIMER: This does contain graphic descriptions of an abortion.

Point 1: Life Begins At Conception
A--Scientific Evidence
From the moment the male sperm is joined with the female egg, all of the DNA that will ever be present in the child that will later be born is already present. This was stated clearly by developmental geneticist Jerome Lejeune, the discoverer of the chromosomal basis for Down"s Syndrome, in his book "A Symphony of the Preborn Child: Part 2". As is denoted by his profession and accomplishments therein, Lejeune is a noted expert in this area. He said:

""each of us has a unique beginning, the moment of conception " As soon as the 23 chromosomes carried by the sperm encounter the 23 chromosomes carried by the ovum, the whole information necessary and sufficient to spell out all the characteristics of the new being is gathered " a new human being is defined which has never occurred before and will never occur again " [it] is not just simply a non-descript cell, or a "population" or loose "collection" of cells, but a very specialized individual ""

If there is never any additional genetic information added after conception, then it is mathematically impossible that there could be any other beginning to the life of the child. If no other factors are added afterward, then there is nothing after conception which could cause the inception of life.

B--Simple Reason and Common Sense
When a doctor performs an abortion, he removes the "fetus" as they call it (always avoiding the term "baby") and throw it away. If you search the web it is not difficult to find a picture of such a fetus. Upon examination you will see that, though perhaps awfully maimed by the abortion, it has a head, two legs, two arms". All of the physical characteristics of a human being.
Furthermore, when doctors insert their tools for performing the abortion it is not unheard of for the fetus inside to cringe and run away from it in fear. So I would ask: is something that has human DNA, all physical human characteristics, and is capable of emotion and thought to be considered a living being? And I would contend that yes, it is.

Conclusion: Life begins at conception. There is no other scientific or reasonable claim to be made about when life begins. Either it begins when we are conceived, or it never begins at all. Thus, abortion is the termination of life.

Point 2: The Baby"s Right to Life
The Pro Speaker stated that every woman should have the right to make her own choices when it came to her health. I would agree. But what about when it comes to the life of another human being? If a mother was incapable of taking care of her 2 year old son and opted to kill him, she would be reviled by the entire world and taken to court for murder. But when that son was only a few weeks old in her womb he was just as much alive (as we have already established). So for her to kill him at 2 weeks into pregnancy is just as much murder as it is to kill him when he is 2 years old. The CHILD has a right to make a choice when it comes to his/her health as well. But where is the champion of it"s rights?
The Pro Speaker asks, "What if a teen was raped and she was only in high school????" Well, the fact of the matter is that the rapist has committed a great crime. He has taken advantage of her in a way which is both legally and morally reprehensible and depraved. But if the girl were to then take the life of her own child, would it right the wrong which was done her? Do two wrongs make a right? No. The girl has been done a grave wrong, but the fact that she has been done wrong does not give her the right to then do an even worse wrong to the baby she now carries.
If she is unable or unwilling to take care of the child, let her give it up for adoption, but the baby has the right to life just as much as the mother does"the baby"s choice is just as important as the mother"s.

Point 3: Abortion Compromises, And Does Not Benefit, The Mother"s Health
Now, the moral implications of an abortion should be MORE than enough to convince us that abortion is unacceptable. However, even apart from the moral aspects of it, the medical arguments against abortion are far from trivial.

A--Abortion Is NEVER Necessary to Save a Mother"s life.
That can be read here in the words of Dr. Anthony Levatino, an obstetrician-gynecologist from New Mexico as he testified before Congress. Dr. Levatino explains the time it takes for the type of abortion in question and says:

"In cases where a mother"s life is seriously threatened by her pregnancy, a doctor more often than not doesn"t have 36 hours, much less 72 hours, to resolve the problem. Let me illustrate with a real -life case that I managed while at the Albany Medical Center. A patient arrived one night at 28 weeks gestation with severe pre-eclampsia or toxemia.
Her blood pressure on admission was 220/160. As you are probably aware, a normal blood pressure is approximately 120/80. This patient"s pregnancy was a threat to her life and the life of her unborn child. She could very well be minutes or hours away from a major stroke. This case was managed successfully by rapidly stabilizing the patient"s blood pressure and "terminating" her pregnancy by Cesarean section. She and her baby did well. This is a typical case in the world of high-risk obstetrics. In most such cases, any attempt to perform an abortion "to save the mother"s life" would entail undue and dangerous delay in providing appropriate, truly life-saving care."

B--Abortion Risks the Mother"s Health
This has been well documented and is not hard to find even by just searching the internet for the information. There is a clear summary of the risks from Puja Lalwani writing for Buzzle.com (http://www.buzzle.com...), however, due to space constraints I cannot fit all of it into this debate. In short, though, abortions, both surgical and medical (taking pills) are prone to such side effects which could range from severe depression and abdominal pain to heart attacks, strokes, and, in extreme cases, even death.

Conclusion: The facts are undeniable if you are only willing to look objectively at them. Not only is abortion an immoral practice, but it does not render a benefit to the mother. In another part of his testimony to Congress, Dr. Levatino describes a bit about what an abortion would entail:

"After tearing off the baby's limbs, Levatino said, "sometimes a face comes out and stares back at you. Congratulations. You have just successfully performed a second trimester Suction D&E abortion. You just affirmed her right to choose.""

Understanding the gruesome reality of abortion, it is, perhaps, time to consider the words of Representative Trent Franks of Arizona in the same Congressional hearing where he referred to the words of President Obama at the Newtown school massacre:

"This is our first task: caring for our children. It's our first job. If we don't get that right, we don't get anything right. That's how we as a society will be judged," Franks said, quoting Obama. "Are we really prepared to say that we're powerless in the face of such carnage. That the politics are too hard? Are we prepared to say that such violence visited upon our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?"

Well, it appears that it is again my turn to post an argument. I am, however, at somewhat of a loss as to what I should say given that the Pro Speaker's argument for the second round was not an argument, but a request. I don't know whether or not there is a way for third parties to make comments on this debate before it is finished, but, seeing as the onus is on me to write a response to the Pro Speaker, I will go ahead and address the question made. The Pro Speaker asks:

"Can someone give me advice on "what is the meaning of life"?"

This would mean what is the point or purpose of life, but, in context, I am going to guess that the question is: "what defines life?" Well, let"s look into that. In Science there are several basic criteria which are generally agreed upon as the defining characteristics of a living organism. On the Wayne State College website there is a very clear-cut explanation of these criteria and of how a fertilized egg would measure up against them. The article shows how the fetus does meet these criteria, but even without that explanation it is fairly easy to look at the definition and see that each criteria is met by the fetus. The article lists these criteria as:

"1) Chemical Uniqueness. Fertilized eggs possess their own unique DNA
from conception.
2) Complexity and hierarchical organization. Hickman, Roberts, and
Larson (1997) explain that the most basic unit in the biological
hierarchy is the cell. The cell holds the properties of living organisms,
and cells can be manipulated in the laboratory and can be reproduced,
whereas nonliving elements cannot. Therefore, the fertilized egg would
meet this criteria, although it would be a more basic unit of the
biological hierarchy.
3) Reproduction. Francis Beckwith (1994) observes that the zygote
possesses two different methods of reproduction: cell reproduction and
twinning. According to Beckwith (1994), twinning is "a form of asexual
reproduction, which can occur after conception."
4) Possession of a genetic program. Francis Beckwith (1994) confirms
that from conception, the fertilized egg has "its own unique genetic
code." The 46 chromosomes present at conception provide all of the
genetic information that will ever be needed.
5) Metabolism. Francis Beckwith (1994) confirms that from conception,
the fertilized egg meets the requirement of metabolism.
6) Development. Hickman, Roberts, and Larson (1997) state,
"Development describes the characteristic changes that an organism
undergoes from its origin (usually the fertilization of the egg by sperm)
to its final adult form." Thus, although the fertilized egg will take on
different forms throughout its life cycle, the development of life begins
at conception.
7) Environmental interaction. The entity in the womb interacts with its
environment in many ways. Kicking and jumping are both examples.
In addition, research has shown that the fetus can be soothed by music
and can recognize the voice of its mother."

I would add a few things onto the explanations of these points. In the third criteria, the ability to reproduce, I would explain that cell reproduction is a common way for an organism to meet this requirement. Many adult humans, for instance, are infertile or in some other way lack the ability of sexual reproduction. This, however, does not make them less than human or mean that they are no longer alive. The reason they still meet this criteria is because the cells within their bodies are constantly reproducing, thus fulfilling the criteria.
Furthermore, as a word of explanation on the 5th criteria, the ability to metabolize, the fetus receives nutrients from it"s mother and utilizes these nutrients to survive and grow. Therefore the fetus possesses the ability of metabolism.

Clearly, then, the unborn baby is, in fact, a living human child. To terminate the life and growth of this child through abortion, then, is just as much of a murder as to do the exact same to a 2 year old child. Even the most liberal and most pro-abortion politicians and people in our country would, I think, be horrified if it were suggested that the killing of 2 year old children should be legalized. That would spark international outrage. How, then, do we justify the killing of that same child at an earlier stage of life?
If the fetus is alive, then, regardless of all other circumstances, abortion is wrong. No matter how the child was conceived, it is still a child, worthy of respect and protection.
No, I am not against women. I do not argue that in the condition of rape that the rapist is any less to blame for his terrible crime"..but I DO argue that no matter how the child was conceived"that its life is still just as valuable and therefore deserving of our protection.
When a society is no longer willing to protect the life of the most vulnerable of its members"namely, its unborn children, then that society has certainly fallen to the lowest reaches of depravity.

As of yes there has been no support presented by the Pro Speaker for why abortion is to be accepted apart from the brief argument made in the first round. As to the judging process, I would ask that voters take note of that.

Now looking at the broader issue outside of this debate, I am disappointing at the lack of discussion here as I value a civil exchange of ideas in a debate

Since my previous arguments have not been responded to in any way, I will simply reiterate here why I believe abortion is bad:

1. Abortion takes the life of a child.
Both form a philosophical and a scientific perspective, there really is no doubt about whether a fetus at any stage of pregnancy is a living human person. Since this is true there is no doubt that abortion is the murder of the unborn.

2. Unborn Children have the right to life and a "choice".
The Pro claims that women have a right to choose what happens when it comes to their health. I would argue that their right to choose stops short of taking the life of another human being.
The child has a right to life as well and a right to make choices when it comes to it's health and life. The problem with abortion is not that it gives a choice to the mother, but rather that it forcibly takes a choice away from the child.

3. Abortion is harmful to health.
Contrary to what many people claim (including the pro speaker here), abortion is never necessary to save the life of a mother and it has extremely detrimental effects on her health, psychological and physical, not to mention the irreversible effects on the health of the child.

Given these facts, there really is no basis for supporting abortion. Thus for those reasons as well as the fact that there has been no response to any of my arguments, I would ask for a vote in favour of the Con.

Honestly, excepting in the cases of a rape, the women DID have a choice whether or not she could become pregnant. However, since Roe vs. Wayde most of the abortions committed in America have been for 'health' reasons. But, according to my history book, a woman merely has to say that her pregnancy is mentally stressing for her to legally kill her baby. Many of the women who have an abortion don't understand that they are killing their child.

Some Pro-deather's (sorry for my lack of tact there) say that it isn't a baby since "It is not viable outside the womb (Unplanned)". Personally i think that this merely means that their baby depends on them more!!!